Penn State Harrisburg

Faculty Senate & Academic Council Agenda

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Madlyn Hanes Executive Conference Room C300

11:50-1:20 p.m.

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

Approval of Senate Minutes January 19, 2012 Appendix “A”

B. APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

Approval of the January 26, 2012 Minutes Appendix “B”

C. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

D. REPORT OF THE SENATE PRESIDENT

E. COMMENTS BY THE CHANCELLOR

F. COMMENTS FROM THE UNIV. COUNCIL REP

G. FORENSIC BUSINESS

H. NEW BUSINESS

Presentation of Hybrid and Online Courses – Carol McQuiggan Appendix “C”

I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

J. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

K. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

Minutes from Faculty Affairs Committee – February 14, 2012 Appendix “D”

Minutes from Student Affairs Committee – January 24, 2012 Appendix “E”

L. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

M. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE COLLEGE

NOTE: The next meeting – Thursday, March 22, 2012 – 11:50am-1:20pm Madlyn Hanes

Executive Conference Room

APPENDIX “A”

CAPITAL COLLEGE FACULTY SENATE

MINUTES

January 19, 2012

Attendees:

Capital College Senators: S. Agili, P. Burrowes, R. Gray, J. Harris, R. Luquis, G. McGuigan, G.

Morcol, J. Ruiz, P. Vora, J. Wilburne, S. Winch and S. Wolpert

Administrators Present: O. Ansary, M. Kulkarni

Robert Gray, Faculty Senate President opened the meeting at 12:00 p.m.

A. Minutes Approval for Faculty Senate Meeting Gray requested a motion to approve the minutes from the December 8, 2011 meeting. A

motion was made by Agili/Morcol to approve the minutes and they were unanimously

approved.

B. Minutes Approval for Academic Affairs Meeting The next meeting of the Academic Affairs committee is Thursday, January 26, 2012.

C. Communications to the Senate 1. PSH’s response to the Core Council report was distributed to the senators as well as

PSH members of the University Park Faculty Senate.

2. Morcol questioned the procedure to produce the report. Kulkarni directed everyone to

the second paragraph of the cover letter which described how each unit contributed

their information and how it was compiled.

3. Burrowes was interested in possibly doing a survey on student retention, asking the

students that leave our campus their reasons why. Kulkarni stated that we already

have this information and he will bring it to the next meeting. One of the reasons that

students leave is because we do not have their majors. We need to increase our

migration of students from other campuses and decrease the number of students that

go to University Park. Currently we have approximately 215 students each year that

leave for University Park. Ansary has meetings every Monday with the Enrollment

team, coming up with solutions to minimize transfers. Kulkarni would like to see

more senior faculty teaching freshman courses to show them our best faculty

members.

4. Currently we are trending toward accepting more students that indicate that they

would like to stay at PSH for all four years.

5. Ansary noted that we have a good balance for all levels (from freshman to seniors).

Even as students leave to go to University Park, they are replaced with transfer

students.

6. Our current initiatives are our enrollment and retention. We provide more activities,

the renovation of the CUB and the new student housing make our campus more

appealing.

7. Burrowes had questions regarding our student profile vs. other campuses. The

majority of our students work either full or part-time. That information is evident in

the financial aid numbers as well.

8. Morcol questioned page 8 of the appendix regarding the use or technology to deliver

courses across campuses. Currently we have PolyCom and Adobe Connect to provide

delivery. The Faculty Center for Teaching and Instructional Technology helps faculty

members develop online courses.

D. Report of the Senate President

1. Gray reported that Dr. Matthew Wilson has stepped down from his positions on the

college P&T committee as well as the University Park Faculty Senate for the Spring

2012 semester, due to a health related issue. Dr. Michael Barton will serve as his

replacement on the college P&T committee and Dr. David Witwer will assume his

position on the University Park Faculty Senate and his committees.

2. All members of the Faculty Senate are asked to review the Core Council response and

provide him with any feedback.

3. Gray and Agili will be scheduling a meeting with the IT department to address issues

such as software access for students off campus. If anyone has any additional issues,

please let Gray know.

4. There will be a Community Forum on Tuesday, January 31 in the Morrison Gallery.

Luquis has organized this event and we will have three speakers to discuss child

abuse and reporting. The event will be from 11:50am to 1:20pm.

5. Nominations for University Park Faculty Senate have ended and we have received

four candidates that wish to run for one position. The ballots will be forthcoming.

6. Another Faculty Forum will be held on Thursday, February 1st which is sponsored by

the Physical Plant committee. Everyone is encouraged to attend to learn about new

and upcoming projects on campus, as well as voicing any concerns regarding our

current facilities.

E. Comments by the Chancellor

1. Kulkarni stated that the recent salary adjustment is an adjustment and not a raise.

Staff were compared with other peer groups and adjustments were as necessary.

2. Kulkarni met with the architects for the upcoming EAB project. We have secured one

of the top architects in the country. The project will cost approximately $17.5 million

and will occur in three phases. Since the EAB is the first building you see as you

enter campus, we would like to make sure it is structurally appealing and should

make a statement about our campus. Two of the three phases are targeted to be

complete by August 2013, but that may not be possible. We may be looking more

toward November/December 2013.

3. The temporary classrooms have been established and are in use. There were a few

problems at first, but they have all been address. We hope to have them disappear

after the EAB renovation is complete.

4. Admissions is carefully monitoring the impact of the recent scandal. The number of

freshman applications is higher, offers extended are higher and development/

donations are higher than the same time last year. Large corporations have also been

supportive of Penn State during this time.

F. Comments from the University Council Representative – J. Ruiz

1. Ruiz stated that applications all across the University were greater than the same time

last year. The student body in general is concerned about finding jobs after the

scandal.

2. From Ruiz’s prepared notes for the meeting:

A resolution was passed during a special meeting of the Senate Council on November

18, 2011. This resolution sought formation of an independent committee to

investigate what happened, and that the majority of its membership not be connected

to Penn State. At this meeting, several motions were made: 1) a motion that the

Faculty Senate send the Board of Trustees a vote of no confidence and asking for

their resignations, and 2) a motion that the Senate leadership put together a

subcommittee to take all the comments made at the meeting, summarize them, and

come forward with recommendations to the Senate as to an action plan. Please see the

link below to the coming Senate agenda for January 24, 2012 meeting

http://www.senate.psu.edu/agenda/2011-2012/jan2012/jan2012agn.html

3. This is an excerpt from the minutes of that meeting regarding the independent

committee proposed by the Senate (See attached Senate Record, 45(3) December 6,

2011, p. 23).

Albert Luloff: Assuming the Senate in its collective wisdom could actually agree on

what we want to do, and could get a rough idea as to how we would proceed with

that, we could then approach administration for support and resources to do that.

President Erickson: Yes, but we need a plan.

In response to President Erickson’s request for a plan, Senate Council placed the

below motion on the agenda for the January meeting.

4. NEW BUSINESS (Motion to be voted on; approved by Senate Council, January 10,

2012)

“A motion that the independent special committee, referenced in the Senate

Resolution of November 18, 2011, be formed and funded to investigate the Board of

Trustees’ oversight role within the bounds of their fiduciary obligation and be

composed of five individuals who are, in all respects, independent of the

Pennsylvania State University, chaired by one of the five independent members of the

committee, and four individuals broadly representative of the University

community: one faculty member, one student, one staff member, one member of the

administration. The committee will include members with relevant academic

expertise.”

This motion came after Senate Council met with Mr. Louis Freeh whose agency has

been hired by the Board of Trustees to investigate. Suffice it to say that Mr. Freeh’s

presentation did little to address the concerns of Senate Council. As the past is

considered a prologue for the future, I would strongly urge faculty to review Mr.

Freeh’s tenure while director of the FBI as well as. We do this when we are doing a

search for faculty.

Here is an article that appeared in Businessweek in 2000 that, in my view, points out

only some of the problems that arose under Freeh.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2000/nf20000918_906.htm

It failed to include the aftermath of what happened at Ruby Ridge, ID, Robert

Hanssen (The Soviet Spy in the FBI), the persecution of Richard Jewell for the

bombing at the Atlanta Olympics, and it should be noted that four months after Freeh

resigned came the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. If you read his record

closely, it is hardly one that inspires confidence.

5. Finally on Thursday 1-19-2012, members of Academic Leadership Council and

members of the Senate Council have been invited to a buffet reception sponsored by

the Board of Trustees. I am given to understand that such meetings were common

before the tenure of President Spanier. Hopefully, I will be well enough to attend. If I

do, I will relay what I learn.

G. Forensic Business

None

H. New Business

None

I. Unfinished Business

None

J. Legislative Reports

K. Advisory/Consultative Reports

None

L. New Legislative Business

None

M. Comments and Recommendations for the Good of the College

The next meeting of the Penn State Harrisburg Faculty Senate Tuesday, February 21,

2012

/slp

APPENDIX “B”

MINUTES

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

Thursday, January 26, 2012

11:50 – 12:40 P.M.

Members present: Qiang Bu, Rick Ciocci, Greg Crawford, Scott Lewis, Barbara Sims, David

Witwer

Member participating by e-mail: Linda Null

Non-voting Ex Officio Member: Peter Idowu

Invited guests: Katina Moten, Richard Young

1. R. Ciocci opened the meeting at 11:50am.Ciocci is filling in for Null who is on medical

leave.

2. Minutes Approval for December 1, 2011 meeting – Null requested a change to the

minutes. CMPSC 444 is a course that presents an overview of the principles of practice of

secure software; however, CMPSC 412 is not (it is a lab class to reinforce data structures

concepts). Crawford/Sims made a motion to approve with changes and it was approved

unanimously.

3. Approval of Courses/Programs Proposals:

a. Applied Behavioral Analysis - Kimberly Schreck

The ABA program change was discussed at the 12/1/11 meeting, but several items

needed to be reviewed. The changes are being made to update the program. They are

changing the number of credits from 27 to 30 in required course work, including the

master’s project paper, supervised internship experience and 6 elective credits for a

total of 36 credits. ABA 577 is being changed to a required course instead of an

elective. ABA 595 Internship – This course is being changed from a 500 level to an

800 level. ABA 594A Research Topics, the A is being dropped from the course. Null

provided the following suggestions: document needs paginated, table of contents is

really a list of changes (will be moved to an appendix), unclear if number of credits is

being added to new requirements (for example ABA 588). If not, should have credits

listed in old requirements as well, not consistent listing credits, ABA 594A is being

changed by not bolded in the documents, new bulletin copy does not link to courses

list, and requested evident of consultation. Schreck took all the recommendations and

will work to make changes. A motion was made by Sims/Witwer to approve with

suggested changes and was unanimously approved.

b. Finance Program Change – Jane Kochanav - Finance Program, School of Business

Administration, Penn State Harrisburg has adopted FIN 461 in place of FIN 406. The

content of FIN 406 significantly overlaps with the content of FIN 420, a prescribed

course for finance major at Penn State Harrisburg. FIN 461 is a continuation of FIN

420, exploring portfolio management in details. The only observation was that the

program change was not paginated. Crawford/Sims made a motion to approve with pagination and it was approved unanimously.

c. Masters of Education in Teaching and Curriculum – Denise Meister

The proposal was straight forward and no discussion was needed.

Witwer/Crawford made a motion to approve and it was approved unanimously.

d. ENVE 540 Biodegradation and Bioremediation – Yen-Chih Chen

Null questioned the use of “introduction” in the description in a graduate course.

Young said that it was fine in the description, but should never be used in the title.

Null also questioned time for exams. Young stated that exams do not need to be listed

(often exams are done outside of class.) It was noted that the course should not be

repeatable and the change was immediately made on the ANGEL system. S – should

also be added to “there will be three contact hourS for each…” The previous notation

by Null had been addressed by Chen, which was addressing how the course differs

from CE 578. Lewis/Bu made a motion to approve with the minor changes and it was

approved unanimously.

e. P ADM courses – Jeremy Plant

The following courses were being reviewed again by the committee: P ADM 507,

514, 516, 517, 518, 524, 533, 534, 556, 557, 558

The changes that are being made to the majority of the courses require the dropping

of P ADM 500. At one time the course was an introductory to all the areas offered in

the MPA program.

Null noted that the justification for changes for each course was just copied and

pasted and it would be better to address the prereqs individually and have separate

justification for each class (as not all prereqs are the same.) Plant will go back and go

through each of the courses and update with justifications with the help of Young.

P ADM 512 and 595 were listed on the agenda, however not included in the material

for the meeting. The current prerequisites for P ADM 512 state: P ADM 505; and H

ADM 510 or P ADM 510. SPA would like to change it to P ADM 500 or P ADM

510 or H ADM 510. The justification needs reworded as well.

P ADM 595 adds a prerequisite “completion of 18 credits including P ADM 503.”

The justification needs reworded as well.

A motion to approve all courses with changes and consultation with Dr. Young was

made by Witwer/Crawford and unanimously approved.

4. New Business

Null created a checklist for reviewing curricular proposals. The information was distributed

to all members of the committee and will be posted on the ANGEL website.

5. Meetings for Spring 2012

Thursday, February 23, 2012 C113 Olmsted 11:50am

Thursday, March 15, 2012 W207 Olmsted 11:50am

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 W207 Olmsted 11:50am

Adjournment at 12:40pm

APPENDIX “C”

Hybrid Courses Guideline A-9

Purpose

To deliver administratively approved “hybrid courses” that facilitate instruction in which

structured on-line experiences through course management software and other media reinforce

campus-based learning.

Introduction Hybrid courses utilize digital technology to enhance learning with multimedia sources; allow for

multiple learning strategies; comply with University policies concerning access; include flexible

scheduling; integrate campus-based, off-campus, technology-based learning, and student-faculty

interaction; and broaden the concept of learning communities. Because of the integrative

function of hybrid courses, they typically require more advance planning for the instructor than

in a course solely devoted to on-campus or online instruction.

Guidelines

Defining a hybrid course: “Hybrid courses are specific packages of online and face-to-face

content and processes organized to reduce or replace the number of required class sessions in

order to improve effectiveness and flexibility for instructors and students and/or to achieve other

efficiencies. Hybrid courses reduce by approximately 40% or more of the number of required

classroom sessions, although some classroom sessions are required” (University Registrar–

ARUAC–Schedule Course Section: http://www.registrar.psu.edu/staff/isis/aruac.cfm#web).

These courses might also be called blended courses. The schedule of courses designates hybrid

courses by listing the in-class meeting time (e.g. T 9-10:15AM) on the first line of the course

listing and AND WEB on the second line of the course listing. To inform students fully of the

structure of the hybrid course, a hot link from the course schedule would allow for students to

see the syllabus.

Consultation and Approval: To begin, the proposer is strongly encouraged to take a self-

assessment to determine if a hybrid course would be compatible with the instructor’s style

(http://weblearning.psu.edu/news/faculty-self-assessment).

The proposer should formally consult with the Program Coordinator to inform that person of the

interest in hybrid course development. The proposer should complete the Request for Proposal

for Hybrid Course Development Form (see

http://hbg.psu.edu/facultycenter/RFPhybridcourseV4.doc), gain the Program Coordinator’s

signature, and submit the proposal to the School Director. The School Director will share all

approved proposals with the Faculty Center to arrange for an initial consultation and the

development of an action plan. This would facilitate labeling the course properly in the course

schedule (important information for both students and advisors); it would also allow for referral

of the proposer to experts who would assist with development of the hybrid course, to ensure that

the course meets its educational goals.

Development of hybrid courses: Faculty are required to work with the Faculty Center in the

design, development, and delivery of the hybrid course. The benefit of working with

instructional designers is that they do course design work every day, are current with the latest

instructional technologies, are familiar with best practices, and can connect faculty to University

and external teaching and learning resources. The length of time needed for a hybrid course

redesign varies based on the faculty member’s prior experience in online teaching, learning, and

course design, the amount of time the faculty member can devote to the redesign effort, the

amount of revision required, the number of online sessions to be designed, and the need for

multimedia development.

All online course development completed in the Faculty Center (see

http://hbg.psu.edu/facultycenter/RedesignGuideforHybridCourses.pdf), including the online

components of hybrid courses, follows the design standards set by the Penn State Quality

Assurance Standards (http://weblearning.psu.edu/quality-matters/penn-state-quality-assurance-

standards). The standards are intended to provide a measure of quality assurance for online

courses to serve the e-learning needs of Penn State students.

The faculty member is the subject matter expert who provides the course content. The faculty

member teams with the instructional designers in the Faculty Center to schedule meetings, set

course deliverable deadlines, and make pedagogical decisions related to the course. The

instructional designer lends expertise in implementing the course in a professional and

pedagogically sound manner.

Intellectual property rights: Faculty should read and understand the University’s policy

regarding intellectual property rights by referring to the University’s Policy RA-17 Courseware

located on the web at http://guru.psu.edu/policies/ra17.html. Additionally, school directors must

present faculty with the “Courseware Copyright Agreement” available at

http://guru.psu.edu/policies/CoursewareCopyrightAgreement.doc to be completed for each

course prior to the start of its hybrid development.

Assessing hybrid courses: Hybrid courses should be available for peer review as any other class

offered at the College. Once the hybrid course is developed, either the Program Coordinator or

School Director will preview the proposed course, as is currently done with fully online World

Campus courses, to ensure that it meets School and College standards of quality. For this review,

faculty peers or administrators should use an instrument adapted from the assessment of fully

online classes (available soon).

Presented to College Faculty Senate: April 21, 2011

Approved by Academic Council: April 27, 2011

Request for Proposal for Hybrid Course Development Form

Available online at http://hbg.psu.edu/facultycenter/elearning.html

Faculty Information:

Faculty Name:

Program:

School:

Office Phone: (717) 948-___________

E-mail Address: ___________@psu.edu

List other faculty who might work with you (peer consultants) on the development of the

hybrid course and who might also be prepared to teach it. Also note the extent of your

consultations with them prior to proposal submission.

Describe your experience with eLearning (formal training, use of ANGEL or other course

management system, previous hybrid/blended/online teaching experience):

Course Information:

Course Designation and Number:

Official Course Title:

Number of Credits:

Course prerequisites:

Course type:

_____ Undergraduate course

_____ Graduate course

_____ Gen Ed course

_____ Elective course

Is this a new course? _____ Yes _____ No

Describe course target audience:

Identify certificates/degrees/programs that require this course:

How often is this course currently offered?

Will this course also be available in a traditional face-to-face and/or completely online

format?

_____ Same semester? _____ Yes _____ No

_____ Same academic year? _____ Yes _____ No

Provide details on course enrollment history, including current demographics; current, past

and projected enrollment data; and demonstrated enrollment demand:

Do you anticipate any copyright issues with regard to the materials used in this course?

_____ Yes _____ No

If Yes, please describe or explain:

Rationale for Proposed Course:

In a few paragraphs, explain the rationale for this proposed hybrid course. Some of the items

we are interested in are: 1) whether this course is part of a “group” of courses that might

eventually be developed into a hybrid certificate or program; 2) details about how the

proposed hybrid course meets “realistic student needs”; 3) background information on the

course as it currently exists or the problem/need that the hybrid course development would

address; and, 4) the potential significance of the project with respect to its potential impact on

the department/program at PSH and the University.

Will the redesigned hybrid course:

_____ Use digital technology to enhance learning with multimedia sources?

_____ Allow for multiple learning strategies?

_____ Comply with University policies concerning access?

_____ Include flexible scheduling?

_____ Integrate campus-based and off-campus, technology-based learning and student-

faculty

interaction?

_____ Broaden the concept of learning communities?

Assessment:

Describe the proposed course learning goals/objectives/outcomes:

Anticipated assessment strategies:

_____ Discussion boards

_____ Essays/research papers/reports

_____ Journaling

_____ Peer review

_____ Drill and practice for self-assessment

_____ Case studies

_____ Portfolio

_____ Individual Projects (student-created web pages, PowerPoint presentations)

_____ Group Projects

_____ Online quizzes

_____ Proctored exams

_____ Other:

Course Redesign for Hybrid Delivery:

Hybrid teaching is not just a matter of transferring a portion of your current course to the

Web. Instead, it involves developing challenging and engaging learning activities that occur

within and outside of the classroom. What types of learning activities will you design that

integrates face-to-face (F2F) and time out of class (online) components?

Provide a current syllabus for this course (prior to hybrid development).

Note:

Feel free to provide any additional information you want to communicate about your course.

Signature of Faculty Applicant: _________________________________________________

My signature confirms that all information provided is accurate, and that I have read and

understand Penn State’s courseware development Policy RA17. I agree to work with an

instructional designer assigned to me by the Faculty Center throughout the design, development,

and delivery of this hybrid course.

Date:

Signature of Program Coordinator: ____________________________________________

Date:

Signature of School Director: ___________________________________________________

Date:

Copy provided to Faculty Center (date): ___________________

Copy provided to Registrar (date): ___________________

Draft of Online Courses Guideline

Purpose

To deliver administratively approved “online courses” that facilitate instruction, which provide

structured on-line experiences through course management software and other media for quality

student learning at a distance.

Introduction Online courses use digital technologies to provide learning with multimedia sources; allow for

multiple learning strategies; comply with University policies concerning access; include flexible

scheduling; integrate off-campus, technology-based learning, student-faculty and student-student

interaction; and broaden the concept of learning communities.

Guidelines

Defining an online course: An online course is delivered entirely online, with no required

classroom sessions. Some courses may require one or more proctored exams. Students may be

enrolled in courses offered by a single campus or in courses originated by multiple campuses.

The schedule of courses designates online courses by indicating WEB in the Day/Time column,

and indicates an eLearning Cooperative course with ELEARNING in the Section Info column.

To inform students fully of the structure of the online course, a hot link from the course

schedule would allow for students to see the syllabus.

Consultation and Approval: To begin, the proposer is strongly encouraged to take a self-

assessment to determine if an online course would be compatible with the instructor’s style

(http://weblearning.psu.edu/news/faculty-self-assessment).

The proposer must formally consult with the Program Coordinator to inform that person of the

interest in online course development. The proposer must complete the Request for Proposal

for Online Course Development Form (see

http://hbg.psu.edu/facultycenter/RFPonlinecourseRev3.doc), gain the Program Coordinator’s

signature, and submit the proposal to the School Director. The School Director will share all

approved proposals with the Faculty Center to arrange for an initial consultation with the

proposer and the development of an action plan. This would facilitate identifying the appropriate

offering platform (World Campus, eLearning Cooperative, or summer-only for Penn State

Harrisburg), and labeling the course properly in the course schedule (important information for

both students and advisors); it would also allow for referral of the proposer to experts who will

collaborate on the development of the online course, to ensure that the course meets its

educational goals. It is important to strategically consider the development of online courses in a

programmatic fashion rather than the development of an isolated online course.

Development of online courses: Faculty members are required to work with the Faculty

Center’s instructional designers. The benefit of working with instructional designers is that they

do course design work every day, are current with the latest instructional technologies, are

familiar with best practices, and can connect faculty to University and external teaching and

learning resources. The length of time needed for a online course redesign varies based on the

faculty member’s prior experience in online teaching, learning, and course design, the amount of

time the faculty member can devote to the redesign effort, the amount of revision required, the

number of online sessions to be designed, and the need for multimedia development. Generally,

at least two full semesters of design and development time are needed to create a new online

course.

All online course development completed in the Faculty Center follows the design standards set

by the Penn State Quality Assurance Standards (http://weblearning.psu.edu/quality-matters/penn-

state-quality-assurance-standards). The standards are intended to provide a measure of quality

assurance for online courses to serve the e-learning needs of Penn State students. The program

chairperson and school director will review the online course against the Quality Assurance

Standards twice during its development: after the completion of Lesson One and the Detailed

Course Outline, and after full course development is completed and before the course is

delivered to students.

The faculty member is the subject matter expert who provides the course content. The faculty

member teams with the instructional designers in the Faculty Center to schedule meetings, set

course deliverable deadlines, and make pedagogical decisions related to the course. The

instructional designer lends expertise in implementing the course in a professional and

pedagogically sound manner.

Intellectual property rights: Faculty should read and understand the University’s policy

regarding intellectual property rights by referring to the University’s Policy RA-17 Courseware

located on the web at http://guru.psu.edu/policies/ra17.html. Additionally, school directors must

present faculty with the “Courseware Copyright Agreement” available at

http://guru.psu.edu/policies/CoursewareCopyrightAgreement.doc to be completed for each

course prior to the start of its online development.

Assessing online courses: Online courses should be available for peer review as any other class

offered at the College. Once the online course is developed, either the Program Coordinator or

School Director will preview the proposed course, as is currently done with fully online World

Campus courses, to ensure that it meets School and College standards of quality. For this review,

faculty peers or administrators should use the Peer Review Guide for Online Teaching at Penn

State instrument available at http://weblearning.psu.edu/holding-folder/peer-review-of-teaching.

Presented to College Faculty Senate:

Approved by Academic Council:

Request for Proposal for Online Course Development

Faculty Information:

Lead Faculty Name:

Program:

School:

Office Phone: (717) 948-_____

E-mail Address: _____@psu.edu

List other faculty who might work with you (peer consultants) on the development of the

online course and who might also be prepared to teach it, and note the extent of your

consultations with them prior to proposal submission:

Describe your experience with eLearning (formal training, use of ANGEL or other course

management system, previous hybrid/blended teaching experience, previous online teaching

experience):

Course Information:

Course Designation and Number:

Official Course Title:

Number of Credits:

Course prerequisites:

Course type:

_____ Undergraduate course

_____ Graduate course

_____ Gen ed course

_____ Elective course

Is this a new course? _____ Yes _____ No

Describe course target audience:

Identify certificates/degrees/programs that require this course:

Will this course also be available in a synchronous (face-to-face) format?

_____ Same semester? _____ Yes _____ No

_____ Same academic year? _____ Yes _____ No

How often is this course currently offered?

How often do you anticipate this course being offered online?

Would this course be competing with any World Campus courses? _____ Yes _____ No

Would this course be competing with any eLearning Cooperative courses? ____Yes ____No

Is this course currently under development or scheduled for development by other

college/school locations? _____ Yes _____ No

Provide details on course enrollment history, including current demographics; current, past

and projected enrollment data; and demonstrated enrollment demand:

Does the course use a standard textbook? _____ Yes _____ No

If No, please describe or explain.

Anticipated audio/visual component needs:

_____ Commercially produced components via CD, DVD, or VHS

_____ Audio/visual learning objects or links to audio/visual components on the Internet

_____ College/instructor produced audio/visual components

_____ Penn State Library eReserves (estimated number _____)

_____ Publisher produced audio/visual components

_____ Other:

Do you anticipate any copyright issues with regard to the materials used in this course?

_____ Yes _____ No

If Yes, please describe or explain.

Anticipated hardware/software needs:

_____ Course specific software

_____ Web conferencing application

_____ Software required for student purchase:

_____ Hardware required for student purchase:

_____ Other:

_____ None anticipated at this time

Rationale for Proposed Course:

In a few paragraphs, explain the rationale for this proposed online course. Some of the items

we are interested in are: 1) whether this course is part of a “group” of courses that might

eventually be developed into a completely online certificate or program; 2) details about how

the proposed online course meets “realistic student needs”; 3) background information on the

course as it currently exists or the problem/need that the online course development would

address; and, 4) the potential significance of the project with respect to its potential impact on

the department/program at PSH and the University.

Which of the following criteria are met by the course you are proposing?

_____ Area of unique institutional strength

_____ Lack of classroom capacity

_____ Demonstrated enrollment demand

_____ Combination of sections of historically under-subscribed courses

_____ Relieve scheduling bottleneck

_____ Provide flexibility in student scheduling

_____ Increase student access to course

_____ Share our courses with other Penn State campuses

_____ Outreach course with a potential for high enrollment

_____ Serve new students

_____ Innovative & creative use of online education

Assessment:

Describe the proposed course learning outcomes:

Anticipated assessment strategies:

_____ Online quizzes

_____ Proctored exams

_____ Discussion boards

_____ Essays/research papers/reports

_____ Journaling/reflective writing

_____ Peer review

_____ Drill and practice for self-assessment

_____ Case studies

_____ Portfolio

_____ Individual Projects (student-created web pages, PowerPoint presentations)

_____ Group Projects

_____ Other:

Course Redesign for Online Delivery:

Describe the types of changes you are thinking of making, addressing how these changes will

effect the learning environment and the student learning in your course:

Provide a current syllabus for this course.

Signature of Faculty Applicant: _________________________________________________

My signature confirms that all information provided is accurate, and that I have read and

understand Penn State’s courseware development Policy RA17. I agree to work with an

instructional designer assigned to me by the Faculty Center throughout the design, development,

and delivery of this online course.

Date:

Signature of Program Coordinator: ____________________________________________

Date:

Signature of School Director: ___________________________________________________

Date:

APPENDIX “D”

Faculty Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes

February 14, 2012

Olmsted Building, W-212, 11:50 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.

In attendance: D. Boisvert, G. Boudreau, T. Buttross, S. Chang, G. Morcol, S. Poyrazli, S.

Rudrabhatla, and C. Sabina

1) Minutes for the November 10th meeting were approved.

2) A detailed discussion regarding Charge #1 took place (Review and make

recommendations pertaining to the provisions in place in the college to faculty in the

process of formal grant proposal writing and submission). Dr. Poyrazli will draft a list of

recommendations and send the document to Dr. Boudreau who then will finalize the

document with the help of Dr. Buttross.

3) A brief discussion about Charge #2 also took place (Investigate what promotion and

tenure advantages faculty have for publishing a patent application, and obtaining a US

patent). Both Dr. Rudrabhatla and Dr. Sabina will compile a list of recommendations and

will include the three recommendations the committee came up with in our September

2011 meeting.

4) ANGEL and email communication will be used to finalize our work towards these two

charges. If deemed necessary, we will hold another face-to-face meeting before the end

of this semester.

APPENDIX “E”

Student Affairs Committee 2011-12

January 24, 2012

12:15-1:05 p.m., Room C-113 Olmsted

Minutes

IN Attendance: Joe Cecere, Glenn McGuigan, Denise Meister, Mary Napoli, AB Shafaye,

Karin Sprow, Paul Thompson

Excused Absence: Joe Cecere, John Haddad, Ugar Yucelt

Absent: Tevon Manning, Ilya Shvartsman

Guests: Omid Ansary, Don Holtzman, and Jim Ruiz

Denise Meister called the Student Affairs Committee meeting to order at 12:15 on January 24,

2012, in Room C-113 Olmsted.

Denise welcomed these guests: Omid Ansary, Don Holtzman, and Jim Ruiz, chair of the

Academic Integrity Committee (by phone).

The minutes from the November 17, 2011 meeting were approved (moved by Mary Napoli and

seconded by Karin Sprow).

Denise announced that the Freshmen Awards meeting will take place on March 19 from 2-5 p.m.

in C-113 Olmsted. Denise asked committee members to attend for the entire meeting or for as

long as possible. The committee agreed to meet for an extended period of time on April 27 to

select all other scholarships. Denise will arrange time and location.

The remainder of the meeting focused on this committee’s charge: Investigate student

misconduct and determine if the current process pertaining to dealing with student academic

integrity misconduct is adequate; establish and ensure consistent and fair processes are followed

across campus, including the centralized tracking and monitoring of repeat offenders. Don

brought various forms for the committee to review and noted that the Academic Integrity policy

(C-7) has not been updated since 2005. Don also told the committee that the Office of Judicial

Affairs has been renamed, the Office of Student Conduct. In cases of academic integrity, the

faculty committee reviews them and makes recommendations. The committee’s charge is to

ascertain if there was intent to deceive or a minor mistake. Discipline issues are processed

through the Office of Student Conduct. There are rare occasions when an academic integrity

infraction can also be cause for a disciplinary sanction. Don also stated that all student records

are housed in the Office of Student Conduct.

Omid said that 95% of the cases that deal with Academic Integrity are plagiarism cases from

take-home assignments. Omid also stated that an instructor must assign a grade of “DF” until

the dispute is resolved. Omid would like to see this language in the policy: “until the case is

resolved, a grade of “DF” should be assigned.”

The Student Affairs Committee stated the Academic Integrity Flow Chart clearly shows the

process. The committee believes the Academic Policy procedure and flow chart should be more

easily displayed on the website.

Denise asked committee members to bring any suggestions for improving or clarifying the

process to the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,